Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

2008: Controlled Gun Debate

By Sarah Wheaton April 18, 2007 10:10 amApril 18, 2007 10:10 am

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post captures the tone here in the capital in response to the Virginia Tech shootings: “The nation’s leaders wanted to act, but they had no obvious course of action.” The White House canceled events; Congress canceled some hearings, including the testimony of Alberto Gonzales, the embattled attorney general. Some Democrats called for new gun restrictions, but responses were tepid from the party leadership and dismissive from newer, more moderate members.

Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post starts off looking at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s delicate balance of campaigning for national office and taking care of her adopted home, New York, and goes on to find that Mrs. Clinton’s approach resembles that of her husband: big presence, small measures.

But keeping her plate full at the Senate is also part of Clinton’s campaign strategy, a real-time illustration that she is a workhorse with a practical view of government. That emphasis on small-scale initiatives rather than ambitious ones was famously championed by Mark Penn, her campaign pollster and chief strategist, when he worked for President Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago and promoted such administration policies as school uniforms.
…
When Clinton took office in 2001, her staff asked her what leadership model she preferred: the approach of the icon whose seat she was taking — Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D), a former Harvard professor who relished engaging in ambitious ideas on entitlement reform and social policy — or the brass-tacks style of D’Amato. The D’Amato role was already being filled aggressively by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D), who had beaten him in 1998. But Clinton replied that she wanted to try a blend of both.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is bringing many newcomers, predominantly Latter-day Saints, into the political fold. While top-tier Republicans like Mr. Romney each raised over $10 million during the first quarter, the anemic numbers of the other candidates means that there’s “no second tier” within the G.O.P., as one consultant quoted by The Washington Times put it.

A South Carolina state senator who endorsed Senator John McCain is on his campaign’s payroll, The State of Columbia reports, as are the sons of two other elected officials who have endorsed him.

Rudy Giuliani found deep pockets in Texas, according to the Wall Street Journal, which lays out how oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens Jr. is supporting him and raising money for him.

I had a lot to say about gun control in the VMI blog earlier, as did many. I think the bottom line is: the 2nd Amendment still applies, but handguns in particular should be regulated closely, and stricter punishments should apply to gun crimes. Everyone that wants to get rid of guns, move to some country that citizens can’t have them, like North Korea.

It is very funny to me that Rudy is getting lots of money from a Texan named nearly T-Bone Pickins. It’s pathetic that Sen. McCain now has to pay people directly to get endorsements.

Imagine that this kind of massacre (at Virginia Tech) happened every day. Imagine a police force that was far too small to even respond to most of them. Imagine this occurring repeatedly for years until the perpetrators and their accomplices became the de facto power-brokers throughout the land. Imagine the shootings also being accompanied by the brutal torture of victims. Imagine families never having finality on whether their own siblings or parents or children have been murdered or not.

This is Iraq today. Now think of the justified rage many feel at the VT campus police chief and university president for misjudgments. Now imagine them presiding over several more massacres in the same place. Ask yourself: why do we not feel as enraged by those responsible for security in Iraq? Are those victims not human beings, too? Are they not children and mothers and fathers and sons? Are we not ultimately responsible for them, having destroyed the institutions of order in their country?

After making the gun industry the ONLY industry to be protected from consumer lawsuits, the frightened members of Congress would be hard-pressed to do a volte face — even if they had the courage to take on the NRA, which they don’t.

Given the disproportionate death and injury rates inflicted on minority communities by firearms it will be interesting to see if Barack Obama has the courage to stand up to the NRA.

Is he really a man of “common sense” or just another empty suit trying to talk his way into the Oval Office?

From Hillary Clinton, expect only equivocation — with zero clarity as to a strongly-held conviction.

Perhaps John Edwards will come to the fore, again.

If he’s looking for an argument for gun control, he need look no further than Hawaii.

Strict gun control, coupled with a lack of Interstates connecting to gun crazy, lax-lawed States like Virginia and Florida, result in firearm-related assault and murder rates that ought to be the norm in the America.

Gun control is a problem, but I will be interested in seeing if what happened at Virginia Tech will spark discussion of mental health parity, true parity by medical insurance companies. There is serious lack of mental health options for people suffering from a whole range of mental problems,especially if they can’t pay for it out of their own pocket.

A ‘controlled gun debate’ in the United States is one of the funniest oxymorons I’ve ever heard. Almost as funny as ever trying to convince all the Pecos Petes in our country to get rid of all their guns except for their single shot guns. Good Lord! Next you’ll be asking them to give up their rocket launchers, glocks, automatic people killers that they have decided they ‘need’ for hunting and all these other necessary ‘defensive’ weapons. Are these people so afraid of their fellow Americans that they need to carry a gun at all times just to live in our country? What a sad commentary on the kind of society we are turning into.

I would like to see the Supreme Court revisit the definition of “People” as it applies to the Second Ammendment. It reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Current law allows legal aliens to purchase guns. I believe that privilege should be reserved for citizens.

Like money, guns are neutral, and take on the character of the person holding it (them).

Guns can be good, or they can be bad. Money can be used for good, or for bad.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can be used for good, like stopping criminals for self-defense, for example.

We don’t know yet, but there is a good chance that at least one student or professor came to school armed, and locked the ammo and magazines in their glove box, and their pistol in their trunk, and continued to class at Virginia Tech–unarmed, and unprotected from the ensuing massacre.

If only one other person in this mad man’s path had been armed s/he could have stopped this from happening, AND s/he would have been able to defend him or herself.

Do we really want a police state? No, I don’t. And I hope you don’t. The alternative to a police state is a wise and disciplined citizenry that is armed. The 2nd Amendment will not go away, and I pray to God that a wise and disciplined citizenry will not go away.

We know now that a campus can be crawling with police, and still be unsafe. Police can respond, but the response can be too little, too late.

Who is going to protect you while the police are on the way, but haven’t yet arrived? Without a 2nd Amendment (already weakened by gun control laws, thankfully some of which have been overturned, and more need to be overturned), YOU will not be able to defend yourself.

Gun control activists forget one thing. Criminals don’t obey gun control laws. Guns can be made on the black market, and machined by gangs or black market manufacturers. We will always make guns for the military, and criminals will always be able to get them. The same for the police. So having no guns around or accessible is a myth.

What wackos want, like the UN, is for all nations to just simply disarm. For those who think that the average American citizen is going to fall for this stupidity, I have a message for you. YOU ARE AN IDIOT, AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FREEDOM.

As the saying goes, you can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. And by the way, before that ever happens, there will be a war, because it will take you a whole army to defeat me and kill me.

I am not alone, we are many.

We are not on the offensive, to find and kill you. We are on the defensive, and wish to defend our rights. But it you start a war, and mount an offensive against us, you will have one hell of a surprise when you get to our camp, and try to take our guns away. You will never, ever, ever succeed.

We shouldn’t be nickel and diming this. Guns have reduced us to the most violent society on earth and made us into a laughing stock. I have relatives all over Europe, Canada and South American and they all think we’re crazy to allow our kids to grow up in such a “shoot ’em up” society. I think we need to revisit the Second Amendment with a Constitutional Committee to clear up the language, once and for all. It’s no wonder we’ve elected a cowboy as president, who is nothing but image, until the real fighting needs to be done and then someone else can do it.
We need a responsible and comprehensive ban on most hand held weapons for the sake of the next generation. Isn’t it enough that we’ve saddled them with all this debt for Iraq, without them having to dodge bullets from every lunatic with a birthright to gun ownership?
For all the posturing about protecting our homes and loved ones, very few of us have ever been confronted with such threats, so that argument doesn’t even wash with me.

This tragedy at Va Tech once again reminds us of the two 800-pound gorillas in American society that we fail to acknowledge and deal with: treating mental illness and reasonable gun control.

If we had comprehensive national healthcare, clearly mental health treatment of individuals would be better and hopefully these problems not simply ignored until tragedy strikes again. We need to allow for mandatory treatment of individuals that are dangerous.

At to gun control, we must view it “as regulation of a dangerous consumer device” rather than a ban on guns. Private ownership of handguns, and automatic or semi-automatic weapons of any sort should be banned. There should be a heavy Federal tax placed on each bullet and weapon sold. There is no possible reason to have handguns and automatically firing weapons except to kill people. As to hunting rifles, I believe that they should be permitted provided each hunter can pass a safety and “sanity” test.

The overwhelming public need for gun control are the 30,000 people shot to death annually and the half million wounded and maimed. We are fighting a war in Iraq because 3,000 people were killed in 9/11. We lose ten times that number each year.

The true war against “terrorism” is here on U.S. soil, and among the hearts and minds of us Americans. We Americans are the most dangerous terrorist threat to ourselves.

I personally believe as the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld for nearly 100 years that the right to bear arms can be regulated and is not an absolute right.

I am for gun control. The weapon that the perpetrator used at Virgina Tech is absolutely not necessary for self-defense or hunting, and nobody can justify needing it. Control would make it much harder to obtain these weapons. It would not eliminate the problem of guns entirely, but the society has to start somewhere. We are looking like a lunatic nation—guns, shootouts and nothing more. I do not hear of these thing happening in any other advanced society. America asks why these things happen, and then it is back to business as usual. I really do not think America cares. They talk about it. They want to heal. They want closure. Murder is one crime that is irreverible.

I do agree with the poster who mentioned parity in mental health. Had the perpetrator received intense psychiatric treatment long before, he might not have ended up killing 32 people and wounding many others. America does not seem to care about mental health treatment either. Most people suffering from mental illness never do any such thing, but when people need mental health treatment, they should be able to get it. It is no different than getting treatment for any phsyical illness.

I do not believe the Democrats will be able to take on the NRA for political reasons. It would be too hard for them to win any gun loving states. They will have to be careful. If they made it a big fight, the Republicans will be all over them—taking away a persons right to bear arms, making them appear LIBERAL in areas such as the heartland. The issue is really twisted. It is liberal to want the bullets to stop flying and to feel safe. The Republicans are seen as strong on crime, but they have no problem putting guns in the hands of anyone who can then pull the trigger. Crimes are being committed by guns all the time across the nation. The Democrats have the rational stance on this issue, but they would end up being on the losing end. To get elected, they will have to be very moderate about gun control.

Regarding the Second Amendment–it a well regulated militia. An individual hardly can be deemed a well regulated militia. The Second Amendment has been turned on its head.

states that John Edwards alone, has spoken to the need to toughen gun laws.

“But this unremarkable purchase by Mr. Cho is drawing attention to Virginia’s gun laws, which some gun-control advocates described as lax. The purchase has prompted calls from several Democrats and at least one leading presidential candidate, John Edwards, for measures to restrict gun sales, even as they proclaimed their support for the Second Amendment.”

We need decent thoughful leadership, not rockstars
worried about the result of reasonable responses to horrible events.I support John Edwards for the Democratic Presidential nomination. I live in New Hampshire and support the Second Amendment. But to keep people safer, don’t tell me with today’s technology you could not check to see if someone had been committed to a Mental/Psych Ward for observation due to publicy proclaimed violent tendencies. This was an avoidable tragedy…avoidable without the giving up of any rights by law abiding citizens.

To Jonny B. Bad,
The article you linked to did not mention Obama or Hillary, and the authors were careful not to imply any omission on the other candidates’ parts. The other candidates may just not be so eager to jump in and make political points after a tragedy.

SLOW DOWN people. This blog is titled 2008: Controlled Gun Debate. It is about, I think, the political ramifications of the sudden gun control debate (which just replaced the sudden Imus debate), and I’m sure this debate won’t last much longer than the Imus one. It shows the stance of all the main presidential candidates, and I think we’d be better served by debating those rather than the VMI shootings or gun control itself. There are other blogs for those topics.

It also notes that the St. Paul police dept. are building their structure to detain up to 3,000 ‘enemy combatants’ at the next GOP thingy, and so I insist on standing up for about 80% of NYC residents in requesting the GOP to NEVER bring that crapola to our fair city again. St. Paul is on their own, as far as I’m concerned.

For all my life, in Australia, I have been subjected to a torrent of American propaganda in the form of movies, TV shows and lately video games, which either present, or depict the normal activities of human beings as hunting other human beings to death. Obviously this is not what we normally do. We regard the slaughter of war as an aberration.
The USA has had, for most of my life, the power to eliminate the whole human population from the planet, concentrated, as far as we know, in the hands of one man, the President. Despite undertakings to bring this situation to rights, real progress has not been made. One thing on which there does seem to be a consensus is that the judgement of the President is not to totally relied on.
The USA, which prides itself on the notion of freedom of thought and expression, should look deep within its soul, and ask how seriously it takes the words “Thou shalt not kill”, in the context of its self appointed role as Christian missionary nation to the rest of us. The rest of us are beginning to feel a little jaded.

What we need is an electronic medical database that holds the record of all those who had ever (1) been on psychotherapeutic drugs; or (2) has had charges filed against them; or (3) had psychiatric counseling. When someone tries to buy a gun, the person’s name, address, social security number, finger print and the type/model/serial number of the gun he wants to purchase should be entered into a central database. After the FBI (or whatever agency) gives clearance, the gun can then be sold. We can’t get guns out of criminal’s hands but we can at least try to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining them through legal means.

As for this case, it is interesting that this boy Cho is blaming everything around him but for himself – the rich kids, the mercedes, gold chain, and “YOU” who made him do it. The media and the people are only fueling this kind of scape-goating thinking by attacking gun laws, rap music, satanic music, family breakdown, societal values…. but not blaming Cho himself. Cho (like the Columbine kids) saw themselves as victims and somehow felt justified in getting the world rid of evil. Cho even called those kids “martyrs”. We must let these kids know – YOU are NO martyr. YOU are to blame. Not the music. Not the guns. Not the community. Not the other kids. And WE will look down upon you as the loser that you really are. No one will even remember you. Yeah, I know that’s harsh and these kids are sick so they’re not thinking straight but I do think shifting the blame to these kids will perhaps prevent other kids who want to be “martyrs” or “heroes.”

By the way, that article on Hillary by Washington Post was great. Those accusing her of doing nothing for NY and being a carpet bagger should read it.

I’m definitely not anti-gun, but there are folks out there who shouldn’t be anywhere near a firearm.

The NRA proclaims, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” I tend to agree, but there has to be a rational way of keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals as well as lunatics like Cho. I doubt very much that arming every citizen is going to decrease the frequency of illicit gun-related activity. It’s impractical as well as very dangerous, without a thorough method of screening the each person. A free nation will not stand for that much personal scrutiny. Because that, as I understand it, IS gun control.

I dont believe that there is much that anyone can do about gun control. Not even the senators or anyone in office have any type of control on people getting a hold of a gun. I think that we can all agree that there are ways around the system. If someone really wanted a gun and had money for it im sure that they could get a hold of it no matter what the restrictions may be. I mean how do gang members get hold of guns? I’m pretty much positive that they dont do it the leagal way.

The issue of gun control has been pretty lax these past few years, and it has taken a tragedy such as the Virginia Tech shooting to bring it back into the spotlight. I think that new gun restrictions should be established, since it is much too easy these days for anyone to acquire a gun. It would also lessen the chance of a situation like this from happening again, however slight it may be. Although it is true that new restrictions won’t deter some people from getting access to firearms (as many do so illegally), it’s a step in the right direction to curb the increased violence that guns have brought to our society.

The second amendment gives the right to bear arms for security, but people seem to be taking advantage of this right for their own personal agendas.

It may be true that people, not guns, kill people. But guns sure do amplify the actions of a few against many. And that is what this argument is really about I think.
FEW against MANY. Or WEAK against STRONG.
It’s a debate that questions the legitmacy of America even being here. Is it ever right or just for a few people to lethally oppose many people.

Guns and firearms (unlike a knife or club) empower the one person to assert their will over the will of many people; or one weaker, slower, dumber person to assert their will over one stronger, faster, smarter person.

Unfortunately there is no longer a reasonable solution to America’s problem with gun violence. There are so many guns now, that there will always be means for criminals to acquire guns. And as Mr. Bradshaw so eloquently stated – at the very worst – it is not possible to restrict or reduce firearm possession among people who already possess the very same weapon that enables them to lethally “defend” that possession.

Perhaps the difference between the U.S. and other less violent nations is not the absence of gun control, but the absence of peace of mind.

Maybe the difference is not the presence of too many guns, but the presence of too many cowards. Those who are too cowardly to defend themselves with qualities such as Intelligence, Brotherhood, Honor, and Love. Those who gave up these powers long ago to Greed, Status, and Fear of some other person’s gun.

I apologize for incorrectly referencing Mr. Bradshaw, when I meant to reference Mr. Needham’s comments in #9.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” “Guns can be good or bad.” These are the meaningless cliches that people keep throwing around and people just keep accepting.

People AND guns kill people! Of course guns don’t act on their own – but they are still a major part of the equation. That would be like saying “Airplanes don’t fly in the sky. Pilots fly in the sky.” The latter doesn’t nullify the former. So since both are a major part of the problem – it seems easier to first control the inanimate tool before attempting to control the living heart and mind of the person using the tool.

Second, I don’t think guns can ever be used for “good”. Good according to whom? Any situation where a gun is need for protection or otherwise – would strike me as “sad”, or at best “not good”. Good is relative. And the desire to define absolute goodness is part of America’s current problem in world affairs.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…